A sampling of recent editorials from Colorado newspapers:
NATIONAL:
The Daily Sentinel, March 4, on how the U.S. operation in Afghanistan is unraveling:
The Pentagon reported March 2 that five U.S. military personnel have been found responsible for the inadvertent burning of Korans at a prison in Afghanistan last month that prompted a week of rioting and violence in that country.
Five is one less than the number of U.S. troops who have been killed by supposed friendly Afghan Army troops and civilians since news of the Koran burnings broke Feb. 21.
Those killings are the latest horrific evidence that our military mission in Afghanistan—and the country itself—are rapidly unraveling, and that we should not wait until 2014 to depart. Why should any more U.S. military men and women have their lives endangered—not just by the Taliban outside their military bases, but by Afghan Army troops and civilians who may work in the same office with them?
According to the Los Angeles Times, two U.S. troops killed March 1 were shot by Afghan assailants on their base, including a man hired to teach Afghan soldiers to read. Two U.S. officers were shot at point-blank range Feb. 24, while working at their desks in what was supposed to be a secure command center.
In fact, one in five NATO troops killed this year, including Americans, have been the victims of “insider” shootings, the Times said.
Said one soldier, the message is: “Don’t turn your back, ever.”
Afghans clearly don’t want us in the country any longer. It’s hard to give much credit to statements by top U.S. brass that only a handful of insurgents are causing such problems, when U.S. troops are no longer safe, even on supposedly secure bases.
Meanwhile, religious leaders in Afghanistan are already demanding that the five people deemed responsible for the Koran burnings be turned over to the Afghan justice system. President Barack Obama’s apology for the burnings won’t suffice to soothe the insult to Islam, they say.
Of course, if the Americans were turned over to Afghan courts dominated by religious zealots, their guilt would be predetermined and their sentences severe.
All this began because the Korans were removed from prison inmates after it was determined they were being used to pass messages to terrorists, according to The Washington Post.
The Korans were originally placed in a storehouse at the prison, but they were mistakenly included with trash to be burned, the Post reported.
That points to an unfortunate accident, not any intentional effort to denigrate Islam or its holy text. But in Afghanistan today, such an accident merits the assassination of U.S. troops on their bases by formerly friendly Afghans. And it prompts demands for the surrender of Americans to Afghan authorities for anti-American show trials.
It’s time to ramp up our intelligence efforts and drone attacks from outside the country. But we should abandon Afghanistan to its murderous infighting and pull U.S. troops out of harm’s way, including harm from our alleged allies.
Editorial:
———
Loveland Daily Reporter-Herald, March 3, on Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe’s decision not to seek re-election:
This week showed more bad signs that gridlock in Washington will get worse, not better, in coming years.
Another political moderate in the U.S. Senate signaled her intent to retire, bringing to at least six the number of senators who could be counted on not to simply follow their party’s orthodoxy at the expense of the nation as a whole.
While the retirement announcement of Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, is part of the ebb and flow of the legislative body, the reasons she gave for her retirement should give pause to the large number of Americans who identify themselves as independent. She talked about how the atmosphere in Washington has become too polarized in a time when solutions to the nation’s problems will have to come through compromise.
To too many on both the left and the right, however, compromise has become something to avoid rather than the goal of a deliberative body such as the Senate. Democrats vilified the centrists among them, notably Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, for various positions taken on health care reforms. Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut became such an outcast that he was targeted by those on his left in a party primary. Even though he lost in the primary election of party activists, as an independent he was re-elected by the voters in the state. He, however, is also leaving at the end of his term.
Other key moderates leaving the Senate include Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas and Jim Webb of Virginia.
With those people gone, it will be far more difficult to craft the compromises that will be necessary as the bills come due in this country. Why didn’t lawmakers get the opportunity to debate the merits of the debt commission’s plan to reduce the deficit and national debt? Because the firebrands at both ends of the spectrum were unwilling to compromise.
It’s not news, but it will be new to some: Compromise on both taxes and entitlements will be needed, and the sooner they occur, the less painful they will be.
The loss of centrist senators will make such deals far more difficult.
Editorial:
———
STATE:
The Coloradoan, March 5, on legislation to create a statewide database of local businesses for smartphones:
The Colorado state Legislature may enter the app business.
Senate Democrats are pushing for legislation to create a statewide smartphone app that includes a database of locally owned businesses throughout Colorado.
The idea is for the state Economic Development and International Trade Office to create the online database by Jan. 1, 2014, and offer the information through a smartphone app. Businesses would pay $10 to be included. Lawmakers supporting the bill hope to help generate business for locally owned businesses and boost the economy.
The concept is a good one and deserves to be vetted, including ensuring that this would be a cost-efficient approach for economic development. What is not yet known is how much it would cost the state office to develop the database (some might have thought the office already would have this information) and create the app.
Some Republican lawmakers are balking at the bill, though, because they say such applications already are available and the state shouldn’t wade into the business of creating them. We disagree that the state should avoid the app approach, but it is sensible to consider whether the state is competing with existing businesses, particularly if they are Colorado-based businesses. And it is important to monitor if this app is not only used but also sustainable.
In fact, we would encourage state officials to look at other opportunities for app development, including through the state parks system, human services and labor, among others. The proposal has one more vote in the Senate before it heads to the House.
Meantime, lawmakers will wrangle over the proposal based on party lines. If only legislators would consider bills based solely on merit rather than party politics: is there an app for that?
Editorial:
———
The Denver Post, March 6, on colleges being allowed to ban guns on campus:
Is it really a good idea for college students to be packing heat on campus?
We don’t think so, and we also think rules governing guns on college grounds should be made by each school’s board of regents.
Unfortunately, a Colorado Supreme Court decision released Monday said state law didn’t give University of Colorado regents the power to ban concealed weapons on campus.
While we think the court was right on the law, the effect is bad policy.
The solution is both simple and complex: State lawmakers should revise the state’s 2003 Concealed Carry Act to give boards of regents the authority to regulate concealed weapons on campus.
This ostensibly easy task is complicated by the red-hot controversy that inevitably surrounds legislation addressing firearms regulation.
The debate would bring the intransigents out on both sides. We don’t think it’s their business, quite frankly, to decide this school safety matter. Universities should have that authority, just as those who run K-12 schools and county courthouses do.
Before you go all Second Amendment on us, keep in mind the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 2010 Chicago case that an individual’s right to bear arms can be tempered by bans on weapons in “sensitive places.”
Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote this for the majority: “We made it clear in (a prior case) that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures … forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings …” He went on to say the court was reasserting those assurances in the 2010 case.
That clearly allows room for state lawmakers to give universities the power to regulate firearms on campus.
In the Colorado case decided Monday, several students had tried to get permission to carry concealed weapons on campuses of the University of Colorado. Each said they had a valid concealed-carry permit.
The university denied the requests, citing school policy prohibiting possession of firearms on campus.
The students had argued—and they were right—that state lawmakers did not include colleges on the list of institutions in which the Concealed Carry Act could be “specifically limited.”
Lawmakers should add universities to that list. Such a revision would put this important school safety decision where it belongs—with those who are intimately familiar with the school, its culture and student mix.
College campuses have become one of the most recent battlegrounds in the fight over the shape and extent of Second Amendment rights.
As that battle rages, the Colorado Supreme Court decision makes perfectly clear what ought to be done in Colorado’s situation.
Now, all we need is legislators with enough gumption to push through legislative changes that will give colleges the power they need to keep students safe.
Editorial:
